Marion County town hall outlines Arkansas law, setback rules and legal limits for local wind projects

Marion County — At a packed town hall called by Justice of the Peace Tommy Dean Johnson, county residents heard a legal briefing on state rules governing wind energy projects and what local officials can and cannot do to limit them.

Tommy Dean Johnson, Marion County justice of the peace for District 9, opened the meeting by saying the session was educational and that he had found no active wind-permit applications for Marion County. He introduced attorney John Russo to explain the state law that now frames permitting and notice requirements.

John Russo, an attorney attending remotely, said the Arkansas Wind Energy Development Act (referred to in the meeting as Act 945 and originally Senate Bill 437) is codified beginning at "23 dash 18 dash 13 01" and contains detailed requirements for notice, setbacks and environmental review. "The ordinance can only be more restrictive than the state law. It cannot be less," Russo told attendees.

Russo read key statutory provisions cited in the act: minimum setback measures for nonparticipating landowners are the greater of 3.5 times a turbine’s total height or 2,500 feet; a nonparticipating landowner may sign a waiver permitting siting up to 1.1 times the turbine height; and separate 1-mile setback rules apply for listed public facilities (schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, municipal limits, state/federal parks and public airports). He also said applications generally must include an environmental impact assessment covering economic impacts, real property values, tourism, agriculture, wildlife effects, viewshed analysis, and hydrogeological studies within 4 miles of a proposed facility.

The act, Russo said, requires notices be sent to a statutory list that includes the county clerk, Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, the circuit clerk in each affected county, any landowner or resident within four miles of a proposed facility, public libraries and the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Russo suggested local officials consider a county policy requiring the clerk to circulate permit notices to all justices of the peace.

On remedies and local action, Russo warned that a county-imposed blanket ban would probably be struck down under Arkansas constitutional protections for private property and could expose the county to litigation and to refusal of legal-defense coverage in some cases. He recommended that counties instead draft targeted, more restrictive ordinances in specific areas where the county has articulable concerns and to consult jurisdictions that have defended ordinances successfully in court.

Russo also emphasized transportation and construction compliance: oversized components must meet Department of Transportation permits for weight and length, and violations can carry substantial penalties. He advised that counties may use the act’s flexibility to add measures specific to local priorities, such as additional setbacks from county roads or river/creek corridors not explicitly addressed in the statute.

The meeting closed with Johnson and Russo saying they would continue discussions with the county judge and invited residents to raise further questions in future sessions.

The town hall did not record any formal motions or votes; speakers said there were no active wind-energy permit applications for Marion County at the time of the meeting.